There are some technical differences of opinion I have with the pass itself, but the point he makes about the underhook is something I hadnt heard before. Is that a common way to define halfguard?
By the way, Im not making any claims about the quality of the teaching or technique, just unsure of what is meant regarding the underhook. I know the value of the underhook, but I dont think having it defines whether or not you have halfguard.
I agree, guy on bottom has the 1/2 guard; he's just closer to getting passed w/out the underhook. If that is me on top, I have to pass HIS 1/2. I never heard this explained any other way by anyone.
Hmm, on passing from guard to half guard, to get the advantage you need to have control of the person on the bottom and in general you would achieve that best by securing an underhook.
I fully agree about the importance of the underhook. It isnt essential, but it's obviously an important part of control. But I just dont think that you can say the person on the bottom, for example, doesnt have the half guard if he doesnt have the underhook, or that the person on top in the halfguard if he doesnt have the underhook. I might have misunderstood his point, though.
The person on bottom only has to wrap his legs around one or other leg of the top person to be in half guard, the arm, neck, head and body positioning of either party doesn't matter.
If the person on top has transitioned to half guard from guard then he needs to exhibit control over the person on the bottom, be that by underhook, crossface or whatever.
If the person on the bottom pulled half guard, the person on the top shouldn't get an advantage (albeit in ADCC this could cost them a negative point in the point scoring period).
JSho, why are we discussing the point system? Ahhh...wait, I might have misunderstood. I thought he was saying that in general, you arent in half guard unless you have the underhook...I didnt think he was talking about points or advantages, just general discussion of the position.
Just rewatched it. I missed the point he was making about the advantage point.
I am not impressed by this persons teaching quality.
he's probably trying to stress who is controllign the tempo.
if you are underhooking you are going to dictate things.
This may become one of the greatest philisophical questions of all time.
That's weird way of looking at it (position ownership). I can't think of any other position where this philosophy applies. Can anyone elses? But he appears to be a black belt, and I am not.
Do you really get an advantage just for gaining the underhook on top?
Half guard is the position. Neither person owns the position (ie. he has it or I have it). Your either it Top half-guard or Bottom half-guard.
"Half guard is the position. Neither person owns the position (ie. he has it or I have it). Your either it Top half-guard or Bottom half-guard."
I agree. I thought this was the standard way of looking at it...which is why I was confused by that part of the video.
Well, the instructor is taking more of a modern, "multiphasic approach" to the position.
I think some of you guys sound kinda "old-school" in terms of how you view positional ownership (no offence).
But...Quarter-Guard! Dope Mount! Half Mount!
Terminology overflow. @_@
Overhook half-guard is just as valid and dangerous as underhook half-guard, in my opinion, for what that's worth.
I think he was making a point about the advantage and initiative. I personally care very little about advantages and think describing anyone in a top position as "having a guard" to be a little wonky.
I do, however, like the halfguard/halfmount philosophy.
Stalkachu - Overhook half-guard is just as valid and dangerous as underhook half-guard, in my opinion, for what that's worth.
i call shenanigans.
i go reverse kesa if they at any point get an underhook. i'm not fucking w/ that shit.
Mr. Oli Geddes knows his overhook HG.
Chris Brennan used to teach that a half guard wasn't a half guard with no underhook. I think he meant it as a point of emphasis (as gusto indicates).